546 Analyses of Books. [September, 
matter on the surface of the globe, and that its structure com- 
pletes the design of the animal kingdom.” 
But does the animal kingdom resemble a temple rather than a 
tree ? Dr. Cleland has shown that some of its forms are termi- 
nal, but the words here used “ none of them capable of being 
prolonged,” have no warrant in what has gone before. The 
assertion may be true, but it is, to say the least, unproven. 
Again (and this is a striking difference from a temple), many 
of the lines of advance in the organic world have not merely 
been brought to a close ; they have, so to speak, been demolished. 
Not merely species and genera, but entire groups of higher rank 
have disappeared. This agrees ill with the idea of a well-planned 
temple ; but it is exadtly what we see in the “ indefinite growth ” 
of a tree. Not merely leaves fall, but certain twigs, and even 
branches of great size, have withered and fallen, or exhibit 
merely their dead remains, while the tree still lives on. A tiee, 
we know, may even change its “leader.” What was at one time 
the topmost branch may be arrested in its growth, and may either 
perish or be overtopped by others. T. his, surely, is what has 
repeatedly taken place in the history of the animal kingdom, a 
fa eft sometimes conveyed in the so-called “ doeftrine of the un- 
specialised.” 
We may compare the animal world to a tree, not young and 
rapidly growing, but old, containing much dead wood and many 
branches that hinder each other, and might be profitably cut out, 
— containing also many branches which, if alive and still putting 
forth leaves, have ceased to grow. In Sherwood Forest the 
reader may see not a few such trees. 
Man is by no means universally recognised by modern biolo- 
gists as the crown and apex of the animal world. Prof. Minot, 
of Harvard University, read, before the Cincinnati meeting of 
the American Association for the Advancement of Science, a 
paper bearing the title “ Is man the highest animal ?” and an- 
swered his own question in the negative. Prof. Mivart, too, 
pronounces the cats to be “ the very flower and culmination oi 
the Mammalian animal tree, and adds that man, “ considered 
merely in his capacity as an animal [whatever these words may 
mean] has a very definite place in such a scheme, but it is by no 
means certain that his place is at its summit.” Prof. Minot fur- 
ther adds that “ it is very doubtful whether mammals would be 
regarded as the highest class of the animal kingdom were they 
not our nearest relatives.” We do not, indeed, accept these 
views, and we are even of opinion that Prof. Minot has been 
completely refuted in the “Journal of Science ” for 1881 (p. 661). 
But they at least show that certain points upon which Dr. 
Cleland’s argument partially turns are still matter of question. 
We must further remember that, as shown by Dr. Clevenger, 
the adaptation of man to the upright position is not absolutely 
perfect, so that there is still room for improvement, Whether 
